It's interesting reading through the list. The entries seem to fall into a few classes: most are fairly recently completed stories, so obviously people who don't start the story 'til it's finished (I'm lumping SpacerX's Six Times... in with these, as it's so bigit's quite possible people are still reading it for the for the first time). There are quite a few entries for early parts of a series which has a new part currently posting (OSL and Stupid Boy by BlueDragon and GYounger respectively). Jay Cantrell and Dual Writer have quite a few entries which would seem to be inspired by readers seeking out others of their stories after a recently completed story, an indication of quality I'd assume. But Rlfj's A Fresh Start is the highest on the list that's not from this year, and the only story from before this year not to have a reasonable explanation for its presence, apart from its appeal to readers. Oddly, I was recently thinking of re-reading it myself.

ETA: I'd missed Grim Reaper on the list as it's from this year, but January, so not really influencing current weekly downloads.

Maybe it's because we here are mostly older, and more intrigued in politics and power and might...

Also for major part of population it seams that war in Iraq and Afghanistan is something in range of war in Vietnam (never ending, with body count that does not stops, and price is every day higher) ...

There were several aspects to the war in Vietnam (and probably other wars) that many of us are unaware of:

1) Munitions have a shelf life and need to be disposed of and replaced. War is one method of doing so without incurring significant cost of dismantling and disposing of the munitions' components.

Tax payers also don't like it when their tax dollars are tossed into the local dump or wasted in other means.

2) R&D leads to new weapons. A war zone is a good place to test prototypes of the new weapons and determine if they are suitable for future use. If flaws are found in the design, they can be corrected, before a significant acquisition contract is signed.

Neither of the above is a reason for engaging in warfare. The only justifiable reason I consider valid for engaging in warfare is to defend yourself when attacked.

It may also be because although he selected a party for the character, he managed to stay away from a lot of political posturing so it wasn't overtly supporting one particular side.
I believe I also gave a higher vote to "A Fresh Start", but it would be hard to identify exactly why I thought it a better story.

1) About munition - I participated in one (awful, fucking and idiotic) war.
There we used munition older than 50 years - without any problem. It must only be properly stored. So, anybody who told you this is either moron, or sociopath, or plain fu***** politician, or idiot salesman from munition factory :(

2) R&D can lead to something good too. It's not necessary to directly or indirectly kill couple of millions people to justify some R&D...

I won't dispute that properly stored munitions can be successfully used long after their date of manufacture.

You may not be aware of it, but in the military supply system, every stocked item is assigned a shelf life. It may be 10, 50, or 100 years, but it does have a shelf life.

The supply system also has a policy that directs disposal of the item, when it exceeds its shelf life.

My personal experience with the military supply system is it is logical, but at the same time ludicrous.

I worked as a field representative with an Army unit. Their repairmen were not allowed to maintain 'bench stock'. They had to go to the supply section and be issued a repair part.

If it turned out that the $10K module they were issued as a spare part did not fix the problem, the supply system would not accept the item back into their inventory. The repairman had to destroy the item and dispose of its remains. That is one of the stupid reasons our taxes are so high.

However, there is a valid reason for not just putting the item back on the shelf. Once again, policy requires that an item be recertified as operational before being reintroduced into the supply system. That process is more expensive than replacing the item with a newly purchased item. The cost tradeoff does allow very expensive items to be recertified and reintroduced into the supply system.

Jade Force doesn't care what others think of them. Their outlook is to get the job done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

They hold the political leaders of the opposing country responsible for what the country's military forces are doing. Therefore, the politicians are viable targets.

One of the main difficulties is that countries starting a war do not look realistically at what should happen if they win. All too often a vacuum is left, the existing leaders are totally outed when they understand the local customs and, under supervision, could reinforce the victor's role.

Vietnam; the military wanted to win but were handcuffed by the US polliticians
Iraq mark 1; the politicians stopped the war before it was won
Iraq mark s; the politicians could not accept that arab leaders are expected to use force to keep the country in order - they imprisoned SH
and hanged him along with the rest who had held Iraq together. They then got rid of the military leaders expecting them to roll over and be quiet; they got ISIS instead.

Yes; it is politicians who give permission for war so they are viable targets

Yes; it is politicians who give permission for war so they are viable targets

I agree.

However, from a historical standpoint, a country's political/military leaders did not intentionally target their opponent's political leaders. Not saying it didn't happen, but that was the 'gentleman's' agreement.

The espoused reason for that agreement was your opponent's political leaders would be needed to end the war.